Yard signs are popping up around Mountain View drawing attention to a contentious state bill that could allow for denser housing in areas near train, light rail and bus stops.
Senate Bill 79, which was introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener, would set statewide zoning standards within a half-mile of major transit stops.
In Mountain View, the legislation would apply to Caltrain and Valley Transportation Authority light rail stations. However, it would not apply to bus lines in the city, according to a spokesperson for Wiener’s office. While “bus rapid transit” is included in the legislation, the bus routes that run through Mountain View don’t meet those criteria because there aren’t dedicated bus lanes, the spokesperson said.
The combined bus and bicycle lanes that exist along portions of El Camino Real do not count, he added.
Under SB 79, maximum building heights would range from six to nine stories within a half-mile of a Caltrain station and five to eight stories within a half-mile of a light rail station, depending on the proximity to the transit stop. Buildings also could go taller with state density bonuses that allow developers to build more housing units in exchange for providing affordable housing.
“Building many more homes near public transit tackles the root causes of our affordability crisis while bolstering public transportation across the state,” Wiener said in a March press release.
SB 79 has received the backing of housing and environmental advocacy groups, including California YIMBY and Greenbelt Alliance. But not everybody is on board with the legislation. Critics of SB 79 say it would override local zoning initiatives and impose onerous conditions on low-density neighborhoods, even when cities make good-faith efforts to plan for additional housing growth.
In recent weeks, a group of Mountain View residents have expressed similar concerns and have claimed that SB 79 could lead to the destruction of historically significant buildings in the downtown area.
The Mountain View Transit Center – a major Caltrain, light rail and bus hub – is next to the city’s historic retail district, which is made up of one and two-story buildings on the 100, 200 and 300 blocks of Castro Street. The area also is surrounded by the Old Mountain View and Shoreline West neighborhoods, which include many older single-family homes and low-rise apartment buildings.
The prospect of upzoning Castro Street has drawn particular concern from Livable Mountain View, a historical preservation advocacy group.
“This is our history. It’s only three blocks and maybe a little bit of the sidewalks too,” said Robert Cox, founder and steering committee member of Livable Mountain View. “We just want it to be here, not only for a few years but for future generations.”
Other parts of Mountain View impacted by SB 79 would include neighborhoods around Caltrain’s San Antonio Station near the Palo Alto border. This has not sparked much public discussion, likely because the area is already slated for high-density housing and office growth, irrespective of SB 79. But there have been concerns about the scope of SB 79 in Palo Alto and its impact on Eichler-style neighborhoods near San Antonio Station.
Neighborhoods around VTA light rail stations, including those near the Whisman, Middlefield and Bayshore/NASA stations, could see more housing density with zoning changes under SB 79 too.
“It just doesn’t seem fair, given all that we’ve done as a city in Mountain View to accommodate the growth of housing,” Cox said, referring to the scope of SB 79.
SB 79 includes a provision for a “local alternative plan” that would allow cities to choose where to build housing within a half mile radius of major transit stops, although it still requires cities to maintain the same total base housing capacity as provided by SB 79. The alternative plan also provides some flexibility for a city if it has upzoned an area recently, according to Wiener’s office.
Currently, Mountain View is working on updating a precise plan that will guide future development in the downtown area. The city also is planning for more residential density along the Moffett Boulevard corridor, across the train tracks from the downtown Transit Center.
“The law itself allows for alternative plans and so because we’re being proactive, we’re already kind of ahead of this ball,” said City Council member Emily Ann Ramos, who supports SB 79. “We still have to meet minimum requirements that would be in that state bill, but it is my hope that we would meet those minimum requirements regardless.”
Ramos also noted that SB 79 was created to promote transit-oriented development, not to demolish historical buildings. It would be difficult to tear down any building with historical status, she said. But Ramos added that the city’s historical preservation process could be clarified.
“If it’s specific properties that have truly historic context then I don’t doubt that we can find ways to make that protected,” she said, while adding that it would be problematic to claim that every property was historic.
Council member Lucas Ramirez similarly said that it was likely the city will take a balanced approach to complying with state housing requirements, so that community priorities are included.
“I expect that Mountain View will likely work on a local alternative to protect historic resources to find a more palatable community-supported approach to upzoning around the transit stations,” he said.
For Ramirez, the regional implications of SB 79 are a big reason to back the legislation. It would lift regulatory barriers to housing in the Bay Area, forcing other cities to provide their fair share, he said.
SB 79 passed the Senate in June and is waiting to go before the Assembly for a final vote. If the bill passes both chambers, it will be sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign.
